Strathclyde supervisor: Dr Conor McBride
Microsoft supervisor: Dr Don Syme
Starting: October 2015
Tuition fees: fully funded or substantially subsidised,
depending on residency status
Stipend: £14,057K
Contact
Hi Mathijs
On 22 May 2012, at 07:42, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
Hi all,
After using zippers for a while, I wanted to dig a bit deeper into them.
I found there is some relation between Zipper and Comonad, but this
confuses me somewhat.
After reading a bit more about Comonads [1] and [2], I
Hi Simon
On 10 May 2012, at 13:19, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm glad you've been trying out kinds. However, I don't understand
the feature you want here.
You say:
fromIntgr :: Integer - BV (size :: D)
fromIntgr int = BV mkD int -- doesn't work, but desired.
fromIntgr :: MkD size =
Hi
Sorry to pile in late...
On 13 Feb 2012, at 09:09, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Andres Löh andres.l...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi Thijs.
Sorry if this has been discussed before.
In my opinion, the main advantage of Agda goals is not that the type
of the
On 23 Dec 2011, at 16:16, MigMit wrote:
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
So... you are developing a programming language with all
calculations being automatically lifted to a monad? What if we
want to do calculations with monadic values themselves, like, for
example
Hi
On 21 Dec 2011, at 22:41, Johan Tibell wrote:
Built a bunch of packages using the 64-bit compiler on OS X Lion.
Works fine.
I'm a bit of a numpty when it comes to this sort of thing. I tried to
install
this version
ghc-7.4.0.20111219-i386-apple-darwin.tar.bz2
under Leopard,
On 22 Dec 2011, at 16:08, Sean Leather wrote:
I've built it from source (ghc-7.4.0.20111219-src.tar.bz2) on
Leopard. I'd be happy to contribute my build if somebody tells me
what to do.
I hope somebody who knows does just that.
Meanwhile, that sounds good to try for myself. My flat's a
On 22 Dec 2011, at 16:08, Sean Leather wrote:
I've built it from source (ghc-7.4.0.20111219-src.tar.bz2) on
Leopard. I'd be happy to contribute my build if somebody tells me
what to do.
I had a crack at this and got quite warm, literally and metaphorically.
But, no, I didn't quite get
On 22 Dec 2011, at 17:49, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
Alexander Solla wrote:
I happen to only write Haskell programs that terminate. It is not
that
hard. We must merely restrict ourselves to the total fragment of the
language, and there are straight-forward methods to do so.
Do
On 22 Dec 2011, at 21:29, MigMit wrote:
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but we
On 21 Dec 2011, at 14:07, Erik Hesselink hessel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 14:10, Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com
wrote:
The semantics of Maybe are
clear: it's failure-and-prioritized-choice.
Are you sure?
Yes.
There are (at least) four Monoid instances for
On 15 Dec 2011, at 15:19, Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 06:49:13PM +1000, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
So at the end of the day... what is the point of even making Maybe
and [] instances of Alternative?
The Alternative and Monoid instances for [] are equivalent. However,
the
Hi
On 2 Sep 2011, at 10:55, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote:
On 31 August 2011 12:22, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
wrote:
I become perplexed very easily. I think we should warn whenever
silent
pre-emption (rather than explicit) hiding is used to suppress a
default
instance
Hi
On 2 Sep 2011, at 16:34, Brandon Allbery wrote:
I hope I am misunderstanding this
I wrote:
I agree that such a scenario is possible. The present situation gives
no choice but to do things badly, but things often get done badly the
first time around anyway. Perhaps I'm just grumpy,
Of Jonas Almström Duregård
| Sent: 02 September 2011 16:50
| To: Conor McBride
| Cc: GHC users
| Subject: Re: Superclass defaults
|
| The question then comes down to whether that warning should
ever be
| strengthened to an error.
|
| Indeed.
|
| I agree that such a scenario is possible
Hi
Sorry to be late again...I'm trying to have what's laughably described
as a holiday, but it seems more like the common cold to me.
On 31 Aug 2011, at 08:52, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote:
| There seems to be a lot of support for Option 3... but what about
Option 2 (ie pre-empt but give a
[resend to GHC users, now I've subscribed!]
Hi Simon
On 15 Aug 2011, at 11:36, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| Nice. But will it be happening soon, or not? And how soon is
| soon?
Not soon enough to be useful for this mappend question.
But, concerning proposed extensions to GHC about class
for one PhD position within the
Mathematically Structured Programming group at the University of
Strathclyde. The group comprises Prof. Neil Ghani, Dr. Patricia
Johann, Dr. Conor McBride, Dr. Peter Hancock, Dr. Robert Atkey, and
six PhD students. The PhD project centres around applications
for one PhD position within the
Mathematically Structured Programming group at the University of
Strathclyde. The group comprises Prof. Neil Ghani, Dr. Patricia
Johann, Dr. Conor McBride, Dr. Peter Hancock, Dr. Robert Atkey, and
six PhD students. The PhD project centres around applications
at the
University of Strathclyde
to be supervised by
Dr. Conor McBride and Prof. Neil Ghani
on something related to
Designing Precision with Dependent Types.
We invite applications for one PhD position within the Mathematically
Structured
at the
University of Strathclyde
to be supervised by
Dr. Conor McBride and Prof. Neil Ghani
on something related to
Designing Precision with Dependent Types.
We invite applications for one PhD position within the Mathematically
Structured
On 17 Mar 2011, at 18:35, wren ng thornton wrote:
Another question on particulars. When dealing with natural numbers,
we run into the problem of defining subtraction. There are a few
reasonable definitions:
No there aren't.
Conor
___
On 23 Jan 2011, at 11:27, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
It may be strange question but:
- Is SHE portable (assuming that the compiler have the extensions)?
I have no idea.
- If yes why there is only information how to use it with GHC?
I'm lucky I even know how to get it to work with GHC.
On 23 Jan 2011, at 18:19, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 18:42 +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It probably is portable, but I'd think only GHC has all the necessary
extensions.
I imagine some parts (idiom brackets) works with minimal amount of
extentions - maybe it would be
Hi Tyson
(So OT, I'm switching to cafe.)
On 19 Jan 2011, at 18:24, Tyson Whitehead wrote:
On January 17, 2011 16:20:22 Conor McBride wrote:
Ahem
: )
The unfortunate pain you pay for this additional power is manually
having to
specify the application ($ and *) and merging (join
On 8 Jan 2011, at 11:14, Henning Thielemann wrote:
For me, the solutions of Dave Menendez make most sense: Generalize
Maybe to Foldable and List to MonadPlus.
What has it to do with monads? There's no bind in sight.
Alternative is certainly a more general alternative, but then I
would
On 8 Jan 2011, at 15:27, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2011, Conor McBride wrote:
On 8 Jan 2011, at 11:14, Henning Thielemann wrote:
For me, the solutions of Dave Menendez make most sense: Generalize
Maybe to Foldable and List to MonadPlus.
What has it to do with monads
Hi
On 2 Jan 2011, at 09:29, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
See also
http://repetae.net/recent/out/classalias.html
http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/libraries/2005-March/003494.html
http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell-prime/2006-April/001344.html
Hi Ben
On 4 Jan 2011, at 19:19, Ben Millwood wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Conor McBride
co...@strictlypositive.org wrote:
Jón's proposal was to improve the latter situation by allowing the
subclass
to specify a default (partial) implementation of a superclass. So
we might
write
, Coq does not use it.
It tends to make things more difficult for the compiler -- I think
Conor McBride is the local expert on that subject.
...I suppose I might say something.
The motivation for various conversion rules depends quite a lot on one's
circumstances. If the primary concern is run
On 15 Dec 2010, at 17:48, Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 06:25:30PM +0100, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 13:51 +0200, John Smith wrote:
On 15/12/2010 11:39, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Any refutable pattern match in do would force MonadFail (or
MonadPlus if you
[switching to cafe]
On 14 Dec 2010, at 08:59, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
John Smith wrote:
I would like to formally propose that Monad become a subclass of
Applicative, with a call for consensus by 1 February.
I would prefer that we have some proposal like class aliases
implemented
Hi
Thanks for the help! I've made some progress, but I'm not there yet.
On 28 Oct 2010, at 20:08, Ketil Malde wrote:
Sittampalam, Ganesh ganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com writes:
Have you tried passing -optl-static to ghc (which causes -static to
be
passed to ld)?
This was new to me.
Hi
I've just installed cabal-install (just as a user: I am nowhere
near root) on our unix server at work. That went fine.
Clearly, the sensible thing to do next is get hold of an up-to-date
package list. So, I tried
co...@cafe:~$ cabal update
Downloading the latest package list from
Hi again
This is what happens when you write actual for-users for-running
programs, I guess. It's been a while...
I've been writing some software with Network.CGI etc, which we
run on the deparmental web server for my students to use. But
we just had a bit of an upgrade on the system, and now
DEPENDENTLY TYPED PROGRAMMING 2010
editors: Thorsten Altenkirch (Nottingham), Conor McBride
(Strathclyde)
2011 timeline: submission Jan 31; notification May 31; final version
June 30
(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-
(p:P s)*
Thorsten Altenkirch
DEPENDENTLY TYPED PROGRAMMING 2010
editors: Thorsten Altenkirch (Nottingham), Conor McBride
(Strathclyde)
2011 timeline: submission Jan 31; notification May 31; final version
June 30
(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-(p:P s)*(s:S)-
(p:P s)*
Thorsten Altenkirch
On 28 May 2010, at 08:47, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Yes, of course you have to trust Djinn to believe its proof.
That's no different from having to trust me if I had done the proof
by hand.
Our you would have to trust yourself if you did the proof.
BTW, Djinn does not do an exhaustive
Remember, Haskell is the world's most popular dependently typed
functional programming language...
(s:S)*(p:P s)-(s:S)*(p:P s)-(s:S)*(p:P s)-(s:S)*(p:P s)-(s:S)*(p:P
s)-
DTP 2010 --- Call for Participation
EARLY REGISTRATION ENDS 17 MAY 2010
On 6 May 2010, at 16:04, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Conor == Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org writes:
Conor Remember, Haskell is the world's most popular dependently
Conor typed functional programming language...
Could you justify that claim please?
Is that a feature request
On 3 May 2010, at 02:18, Edgar Z. Alvarenga wrote:
On Sun, 02/May/2010 at 13:10 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
* Avoid partial functions
Why?
Tell you tomorrow.
Conor
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Hi
(Redirecting to cafe, for general chat.)
On 12 Apr 2010, at 01:39, Mark Snyder wrote:
Hello,
I'm wondering what the correct terminology is for the extra
functions that we define with monads. For instance, State has get
and put, Reader has ask and local, etc. Is there a good name
Hi Stephen
On 12 Apr 2010, at 13:00, Stephen Tetley wrote:
Hi Conor
William Harrison calls them 'non-proper morphisms' in his various
papers modelling threads etc. using resumption monads.
I like Bill's work on resumptions, but I'm not entirely convinced
by this phrase, which strikes me
Getting back to the question, whatever happened to empty case
expressions? We should not need bottom to write total functions from
empty types.
Correspondingly, we should have that the map from an empty type to
another given type is unique extensionally, although it may have many
Hi
On 27 Jan 2010, at 20:14, Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Jochem Berndsen
joc...@functor.nl wrote:
Now, here's the question: Is is correct to say that [3, 5, 8] is a
monad?
In what sense would this be a monad? I don't quite get your question.
I
On 27 Jan 2010, at 22:02, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@web.de
wrote:
Am Mittwoch 27 Januar 2010 22:50:35 schrieb Conor McBride:
It has been known to call such things 'computations', as opposed to
'values', and even to separate the categories of types and
expressions
which
Hi Tony
On 29 Dec 2009, at 12:10, Tony Morris wrote:
Can (liftM join .) . mapM be improved?
(Monad m) = (a - m [b]) - [a] - m [b]
You can
(a) generalize m from Monad to Applicative
(b) generalize [b] to any Monoid
(c) generalize [a] to f a for any Foldable f
and write
ala AppLift
Hi Maciej
On 29 Dec 2009, at 20:52, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 18:20 +, Conor McBride wrote:
ala AppLift foldMap
What is benefit of it over:
concatMapA f = foldr (liftA2 mappend . f) (pure mempty)
Given that applicative functors take monoids to monoids, it's
nice
Hi Maciej
On 30 Dec 2009, at 00:07, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 23:00 +, Conor McBride wrote:
Hi Maciej
On 29 Dec 2009, at 20:52, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 18:20 +, Conor McBride wrote:
ala AppLift foldMap
What is benefit of it over
Hi
I thought I'd record my upgrade exerience (so far) in case anyone else
finds it useful, and (more selfishly) in case anyone has some helpful
advice. Summary of situation
* I got 6.12 working.
* It took a lot of fumbling around.
* The eventual fix (renaming
Hi all
On 17 Dec 2009, at 14:22, Tom Schrijvers wrote:
class MyClass k where
type AssociatedType k :: *
Is there a way of requiring AssociatedType be of class Eq, say?
Have you tried:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
class Eq (AssociatedType k) = MyClass k
On 17 Dec 2009, at 15:31, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Hmm. If you have
class (Diff (D f)) = Diff f where
then if I have
f :: Diff f = ...
f = e
then the constraints available for discharging constraints arising
from e are
Diff f
Diff (D f)
Diff (D
Hi Martijn
On 3 Dec 2009, at 00:16, Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
So here's a totally wild idea Sjoerd and I came up with.
What if newtypes were unwrapped implicitly?
Subtyping.
What advantages and disadvantages would it have?
The typechecker being psychic; the fact that it isn't.
It's
Hi Benjamin
On 24 Nov 2009, at 02:35, Benjamin L.Russell wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), jfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Typef*ck: Brainf*ck in the type system. Johnny Morrice [23]showed us
his implementation of everyone's favorite profane programming
language... in the type
*** Scottish Category Theory Seminar
*** First Meeting
*** Friday 27 November 2009, 2pm
*** University of Glasgow, Scotland
Dear All,
We are pleased to
On 10 Nov 2009, at 05:52, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 2009-11-09 14:22 -0800 (Mon), muad wrote:
Proof: True for n = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (check!), hence true for all n.
QED.
...
Actually, the test is that it's true for 0 through 4 is not sufficient
for a proof;
It's enough testing...
you also
How about this?
{-# LANGUAGE ThinkTotal #-}
On 8 Nov 2009, at 09:53, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Eugene Kirpichov ekirpic...@gmail.com writes:
In JavaScript there is a null value, that is the only value of
the null type.
Isn't
Hi
On 31 Oct 2009, at 10:39, Conor McBride wrote:
Hi
On 30 Oct 2009, at 16:14, Yusaku Hashimoto wrote:
Hello cafe,
Do you know any data-type which is Applicative but not Monad?
[can resist anything but temptation]
I have an example, perhaps not a datatype:
tomorrow-you-will-know
On 2 Nov 2009, at 00:11, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:20:18PM +, Conor McBride wrote:
On 31 Oct 2009, at 10:39, Conor McBride wrote:
I have an example, perhaps not a datatype:
tomorrow-you-will-know
Elaborating, one day later,
if you know something today, you can
Hi
On 30 Oct 2009, at 16:14, Yusaku Hashimoto wrote:
Hello cafe,
Do you know any data-type which is Applicative but not Monad?
[can resist anything but temptation]
I have an example, perhaps not a datatype:
tomorrow-you-will-know
Cheers
Conor
On 7 Oct 2009, at 15:04, John A. De Goes wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com writes:
So yes, without using IO, Haskell forces you into this safe spot
One could argue that IO should be broken down into a set of sub-
monads
Hi Jason
On 22 Sep 2009, at 10:04, Jason Dusek wrote:
2009/09/21 Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org:
...or have unpleasant memories of being made to eat sulphurous
overboiled cabbage on pain of no pudding.
Well, maybe the Cabal cabbages are Napa cabbages or red
cabbages or pickled
Hi
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:25, D. Manning wrote:
2009/9/22 Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
I'm just suggesting that the marketing department consider the
variety of connotations and suggestions the term evokes before
adopting it: legendary backfirings abound (the Spanish sales
failure
On 20 Sep 2009, at 23:11, Jason Dusek wrote:
Some day, we're going to need a short, catchy name for Cabal
packages. Let's call them cabbages.
Not that this is a good reason to change your mind, but some
sufficiently ancient Brits may remember a televisual
entertainment programme in which
Hi Jón
On 21 Sep 2009, at 10:23, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org writes:
On 20 Sep 2009, at 23:11, Jason Dusek wrote:
Some day, we're going to need a short, catchy name for Cabal
packages. Let's call them cabbages.
Not that this is a good reason to change
Hi all
Interesting stuff. Thanks for this.
On 26 Aug 2009, at 03:45, Ryan Ingram wrote:
Hi Dan, thanks for the great reply! Some thoughts/questions follow.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Dan Doeldan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, this isn't surprising; you wouldn't have it even in a more
Hi
I'm sure it won't be to everyone's taste, but here's what
SHE makes of this problem. SHE lives here
http://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/~conor/pub/she
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -F -pgmF she #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs, KindSignatures, TypeOperators, TypeFamilies,
FlexibleContexts,
Hi Dan
On 12 Aug 2009, at 22:28, Dan Doel wrote:
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 10:12:14 am John A. De Goes wrote:
I think the point is that a functional language with a built-
in effect system that captures the nature of effects is pretty damn
cool and eliminates a lot of boilerplate.
It's
On 12 Aug 2009, at 20:40, Don Stewart wrote:
bugfact:
Well, the point is that you still have monadic and pure programming
styles. It's true that applicative style programming can help here,
but then you have these $ and * operators everywhere, which also
feels like boilerplate code (as you
Hi Miguel
On 18 Jul 2009, at 07:58, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
Oops... Sorry, wrong line. Should be
isAB :: forall p. p A - p B - p x
Yep, dependent case analysis, the stuff of my thesis,...
On 18 Jul 2009, at 10:51, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
What is it for?
I have a different purpose in
On 18 Jul 2009, at 01:43, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
As far as I know it works. It's an old Oleg trick.
Then it probably does work.
The only drawback is that error messages may refer to Private.
As I found out when probing its security. No instance for Moo.Private
shows up. I guess that's
Hi Stefan
On 18 Jul 2009, at 09:42, Stefan Holdermans wrote:
Conor,
What happens when I say
newtype Jim = Hide Fred deriving Public
? I tried it. I get
blah :: EQ Jim Fred
It's clear that GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving goes too far.
Now, I am scared. This should be regarded as a bug in
Hi Wolfgang
On 18 Jul 2009, at 13:42, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Samstag, 18. Juli 2009 11:43 schrieb Conor McBride:
The trouble here is that somewhere along the line (GADTs? earlier?)
it became possible to construct candidates for p :: * - * which
don't
respect isomorphism.
Hello Conor
Friends
Is closing a class this easy?
--
module Moo
( Public(..)
) where
class Private x = Public x where
blah :: ...
class Private x where
instance Private A where
instance Public A where
blah = ...
instance Private B where
instance Public B
Hi folks
data NE x = x : Maybe (NE x)
?
It's Applicative in at least four different
ways. Can anyone find more?
Conor
On 5 Jun 2009, at 01:34, Edward Kmett wrote:
Günther,
Miguel had the easiest suggestion to get right:
Your goal is to avoid the redundant encoding of a list of one
Comrades
I'm in a perplexing situation and I'd like to appeal to the
sages.
I've never written anything other than static HTML in my life,
and I'd like to make a wee web service: I've heard some
abbreviations, but I don't really know what they mean.
I've got a function (possibly the identity,
On 31 May 2009, at 20:40, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
A new version of the uu-parsinglib has been uploaded to hackage. It
is now based on Control.Applicative where possible.
It's mutual.
Cheers
Conor
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Hi
On 20 May 2009, at 07:08, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
Thanks for the thorough response.
I've found BarrasBernardo's work (at least, slides) about ICC*, I'll
have a look at it.
Could you provide with names of works by Altenkirch/Morris/Oury/you?
The unordered pair example was especially
Hi
Questions of parametricity in dependent types are made more
complex by the way in which the Pi-type
(x : S) - T
corresponds to universal quantification. It's good to think
of this type as a very large product, tupling up individual
T's for each possible x you can distinguish by
On 16 May 2009, at 03:54, wren ng thornton wrote:
Conor McBride wrote:
Rumblings about funny termination behaviour, equality
for functions, and the complexity of unification (which
isn't the proposal anyway)
But unification is what you get by adding non-linearity.
Hang on a minute: we're
Hi
On 15 May 2009, at 09:11, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Martin Hofmann wrote:
It is pretty clear, that the following is not a valid Haskell
pattern:
foo (x:x:xs) = x:xs
My questions is _why_ this is not allowed. IMHO, the semantics should
be
clear: The pattern is expected to succeed, iff
On 15 May 2009, at 12:07, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
In the original language design the Haskell committee considered
allowing multiple occurrences of the same variable in a pattern (with
the suggested equality tests), but it was rejected in favour of
simplicity.
Simplicity for whom, is the
Hi Thomas
This is iffy versus miffy, a standard applicative problem.
When you use the result of one computation to choose the
next computation (e.g., to decide whether you want to keep
doing-and-taking), that's when you need yer actual monad.
It's the join of a monad that lets you compute
Hi Achim
On 5 May 2009, at 01:26, Achim Schneider wrote:
Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org wrote:
Remember folks: Missiles need miffy!
H. Iff you have something like CoPointed or Foldable, you can
thread your own, Applicative, tail back into yourself and decide what
you
Hi folks
In search of displacement activity, I'm trying to tweak
Language.Haskell.Exts to support a few more perfidious
Exts I have in mind -- they only need a preprocessor,
but I do need to work on parsed programs, ideally.
I was hoping to add a production to the grammar of types
to admit
On 15 Apr 2009, at 16:01, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I'd suggest using some different kind of brackets to relieve the
misery, like {| |}.
That would speed up my tinkering, certainly.
I did have a d'oh moment: you can write
data Foo = Moo {goo :: Int} -- braces where a type goes
and
Hi Niklas
Good to hear from you, and thanks for providing such a
useful starting point for my experiments.
On 15 Apr 2009, at 19:27, Niklas Broberg wrote:
Hi Conor,
Conor McBride:
The trouble is, the production I've added causes a
reduce/reduce conflict in the grammar, but I don't get
any
Hi
On 18 Mar 2009, at 15:00, Conal Elliott wrote:
I use these defs:
-- | Lift proof through a unary type constructor
liftEq :: a :=: a' - f a :=: f a'
liftEq Refl = Refl
-- | Lift proof through a binary type constructor (including '(,)')
liftEq2 :: a :=: a' - b :=: b' - f a b :=: f a' b'
Hi
On 17 Mar 2009, at 21:06, David Menendez wrote:
2009/3/17 Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com:
Here are the original definition and the proofs of comm and trans.
Compiles
fine with GHC 6.10.1.
data (a :=: a') where
Refl :: a :=: a
comm :: (a :=: a') - (a' :=: a)
comm Refl =
On 17 Mar 2009, at 21:44, Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
Conor McBride wrote:
instance Category (:=:) where
id = Refl
Refl . Refl = Refl
That and the identity-on-objects functor to sets and
functions.
Not sure what you mean by this, Conor. Can you please express this
in Haskell code
Hi Henning
On 14 Mar 2009, at 01:36, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Conor McBride wrote:
Apologies for crossposting. Please forward this message
to individuals or lists who may be interested. In addition
to the recently advertised PhD position at Strathclyde on
Reusability
Hi Wolfgang
On 14 Mar 2009, at 12:00, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 08:19 schrieb Peter Verswyvelen:
Well, in C++ one can already use the numerical values with
templates for
achieving a lot of compile time computations.
So I would be very happy to have this feature in
Hi Dan
On 14 Mar 2009, at 14:26, Dan Doel wrote:
On Saturday 14 March 2009 8:12:09 am Conor McBride wrote:
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Of course I want more than just numerical indexing (and I even
have a plan) but numeric constraints are so useful and have
so much of their own peculiar
Hi Dan
On 14 Mar 2009, at 18:48, Dan Doel wrote:
On Saturday 14 March 2009 1:07:01 pm Conor McBride wrote:
I don't think the duplicate-or-plunge dilemma you
pose exhausts the options. At least, I seem no reason to presume
so and I look forward to finding out!
I didn't mean to suggest
On 13 Mar 2009, at 14:32, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 03:18:15PM +0100, Martijn van Steenbergen
wrote:
Are there any functors f for which no point/pure/return :: a - f a
exists?
No. Choose an arbitrary element shape :: f () and define
point x = fmap (const x)
Conor McBride
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Conor McBride
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi Bulat, hi all,
On 10 Mar 2009, at 16:06, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Conor,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 6:59:58 PM, you wrote:
{-
-- Haskell Types with Numeric Constraints
Hi folks
On 18 Feb 2009, at 10:35, Ryan Ingram wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Lennart Augustsson
lenn...@augustsson.net wrote:
Also, if you are using ghc you can turn on the extension that allows
undecidable instances and make the type system Turing complete.
snarkAnd you get the
Hi Edsko
On 13 Feb 2009, at 09:14, Edsko de Vries wrote:
Hey,
Thanks for all the suggestions. I was hoping that there was some
uniform
pattern that would extend to n arguments (rather than having to use
liftM2, litM3, etc. or have different 'application' operators in
between
the
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
